If Colleges Ban "Advocacy of Genocide," What Would That Mean for Speech Supporting Israeli Actions in Gaza?

Most 18-to-24-year-old registered voters, a recent poll reports, view Israel's actions as "genocide."

I've argued before that, if universities ban "advocacy of genocide," that "could easily be used against pro-Israel speakers," such as those who support Israel's counterattack on Hamas in Gaza. Here's supporting evidence, from the Harvard/Harris poll conducted last week:

It appears that a substantial majority of college-age registered voters, and indeed likely of 18-to-34-year-olds, characterize Israel's actions in Gaza as "genocide." And though the majority among the public at large don't do that, it's easy to imagine many university administrations and faculties who would be more on the anti-Israel side than is the country as a whole—especially when they are supported in their anti-Israel positions by student sentiment. (I strongly disagree with this condemnation of Israel's actions, but we should recognize the sentiments as they actually appear to be, not as we wish they were.)

Plus of course in fifteen years, today's 18-to-34-year-olds will be 33-to-49-year-olds, and the many of the strong supporters of Israel's actions will be dead of old age; perhaps people's views will change as they get older, but that's far from clear. Worth considering, I think, before one demands a First Amendment exception for "advocacy of genocide," or an exception from free speech principles that many private universities have at least ostensibly adopted.

Comments

[a.heroic.dose]

The IDF's current military campaign is a genocide, at least have the balls to call it what it is.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

OK, I have the balls. You're an idiot.

Good enough?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'm beginning to sense that better Americans are going to cut Israel's right-wing assholes loose quicker than I expected. Let's hope we ditch the Saudis -- another bunch of immoral, superstition-addled right-wing losers -- simultaneously.

Keep up the good work, clingers!

[Krayt]

These so-called better Americans were designed into this as useful idiots, pre-planned to stop reprisal on mass murderers who deliberately hide amongst civilians.

This "business model" must be defeated. Now, if you want to treat it as a hostage situation of not just Israelis, but of their own people, then we can talk.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What caused right-wingers to abandon Ukraine and cuddle with Russia and Putin?

[Scooter]

LOL, Meat.

You're so funny when you try to sound Tuff!

Carry on, Lesser.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is your fan base, Volokh Conspirators.

And the reason you are no longer wanted among strong law faculties.

[Bored Lawyer]

"I’m beginning to sense"

Now he thinks he's Obi-wan Kenobi. "I sense a great disturbance in the force."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No superstitious mumbo jumbo involved (or desired).

The mainstream reports of Israel losing support -- and concerning Israel's steady stream of misconduct and mistakes likely to intensify the diminution of that support -- are piling like the unreported gifts in a Thomas household closet.

[Scooter]

Artie couldn't sense his own ass if the instructions were printed on the palms of his hands.

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

YOu never reason,you sense. And that is what children do.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let's check your credibility on maturity. Do you believe, or claim to believe, fairy tales are true? Are you immature enough to be afflicted by adult-onset superstition? Are you childish enough to believe in nonsense?

[ConservativeProfessor]

Why don't you summon the mental facuilties to prove that it is. Just asserting doesn't make it so.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Genocide combines the Greek word γένος (genos, "race, people") with the Latin suffix -caedo ("act of killing"). I use a simpler definition -- Gene Killing -- or to kill all the people who are genetically similar. Because of their genetics -- be they Jews or Armenians or whomever.

The IDF could nuke Gaza, turn all those pretty beaches (that *could* be attracting European tourists if the Gazians cleaned up their act) into glowing radioactive glass and even that wouldn't be a "Genocide."

[David Nieporent]

Editor's note: in fact, that would be genocide.

[ReaderY]

The Klan and Confederate Redeemer folks certainly portrayed the Civil War and Reconstructionism as genocide on them. The word didn’t exist back then but they decribed an attempt to wipe them out in apocalyptic terms. . And the idea that what the NCAA stood for represented an attempt to destroy the Southern people as a people out certainly persisted well into and past the days of Martin Luther King Jr.

[David Nieporent]

Look, I think the rules about athletic eligibility are silly too, but that seems a bit extreme.

[Michael Ejercito]

That depends on if universities enforce speech codes in an even-handed manner.

[Randal]

They do.

Most affinity groups aren't engaged in a controversial 100-year conflict.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can you say "Belfast"? Or "Quebec"?

Massachusetts is the second most Catholic state in the country and UMass isn't exactly friendly to Protestants -- but the difference is that no one is calling for the Protestants to be killed.

That's where I draw the line, calling for ANY group of people to be killed should be prohibited, and while IANAA, I think this is where Justice Thomas was going with upholding Virginia's cross burning law.

And the real question is what would these college administrators do if a Klan chapter showed up on campus? We all know -- and hence...

[Sarcastr0]

Ed saying don’t call for groups to be killed…

Gazans, illegals, protesters when on roads…not groups I guess.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In addition to the "not genos" part, you are intentionally co-mingling legitimate killing and illegitimate killing.

For example, under International law, every sovereign state has the right to use deadly force to secure its borders. You can't just drive across the Saudi border, hop on the highway and go visit Mecca (as a non-Muslim). If you try it, men with guns will stop you, and shoot you if you don't stop.

And as to running over the a-holes who block interstate highways (or railroad tracks), that's just them getting what they deserve. I would have no problem clearing the roads with snow plows -- drive them slow enough for the idiots to get out of the road if they want to, or die if they want to do that.

As an aside, what do you think the response would be if those blocking highways were doing it to prevent access to abortion clinics? Would that be tolerated???

[Sarcastr0]

Genocide cheerleader always find ways to call their mass killings legitimate.

Case and point.

Pro life protesters blocking access is a thing that has happened. No one was talking about running them over somehow.

[David Nieporent]

Let's not forget his cheerleading for the murder of sex workers.

[Randal]

You are intentionally co-mingling legitimate killing and illegitimate killing.

The idiocy of this statement really can't be overstated.

[Jmaie]

Most folks these days don't understand what term "genocide" actually means, it's just another of the generic "things that sound extra bad" words that are thrown out when attacking an ideological foe. Think "fascist." Or my personal pet peeve, "decimated."

[David Nieporent]

"Decimated" is a word that has shifted usage over the millennia; that's different than "genocide," where people are using it — like the related term "war crimes" — to say, "We really really disapprove" without knowing what the word actually refers to.

[myself]

Well here's the definition.

Hamas's stated goals, are definitely genocide. It's debatable if their charter involves a) killing the Jews in Israel, or just expelling them, but either way they certainly hit c) trying to destroy Israel.

As for Israel it's a bit more debatable. Rhetoric about Palestinians not being a real group would be relevant, but I don't know if it's Israeli policy. And I think that there's a strong argument that c) is what Israel is doing in the West Bank, but again, the government doesn't really have an official endgame there.

Applied to Gaza I don't think it qualifies as genocide, but I don't think Israel has coherent war goals either. You can't wipe out Hamas without a serious long term occupation, and I can't imagine Israel plans that for Gaza. There's also the fact of the three hostages the IDF killed.

They were killed as they approached troops shirtless and waving a white flag. That suggests the IDF troops in question thought they were killing surrendering Hamas soliders or non-combatant Palestinian civilians, a war crime either way. That's probably not genocide, but a widespread pattern of war crimes is pretty bad as well.

[David Nieporent]

.

in fifteen years, today's 18-to-34-year-olds will in ten years be the 33-to-49-year-olds,

Um, interesting math.

[bernard11]

Lawyer math.

[Eugene Volokh]

Whoops, fixed, thanks. As you might gather, I started with "in ten years," then decided to change this to fifteen but didn't properly edit it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The professor still hasn't properly edited it. A proper revision at a legitimate publication would note the error and the change.

[Bwaaah]

"proper revision at a legitimate publication would note the error and the change."

If those numbers are cognitively material to the reader, then the error is self-evident and nobody is materially mislead.

In my observations, an error such as this, that doesn't cause material misunderstanding to the reader, does not get noted on the websites of the big, reputable outlets. Yes, they sometimes note even minor corrections in names and specific facts about named people, but that's a special category of error. Otherwise, it's usually a matter of materiality. They make lots of corrections without gumming up the presentation with needless changelogs.

You just don't know it.

But thanks for describing what does happen when viewed through Arthur's Lens of Resentment.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy has been flouting legitimate publication standards with respect to its many errors for years. I wouldn't expect you to understand that. I wouldn't expect you -- or any other fanboy among with blog's carefully cultivated collection of racist, homophobic, downscale, misogynistic, Islamophobic, disaffected, xenophobic right-wingers -- to object. Prof. Volokh relies on the same assumptions. (Related point: But not, for much longer, from a position on UCLA's campus.)

[Drewski]

Sure, 50 years ago, in major newspapers and journals. Today we see egregious typos in major publications that simply go uncorrected and unacknowledged. It's always been like that for smaller publications. EV is more diligent about mistakes of that sort than, say, CNN or the Wall Street Journal are today.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

EV is more diligent about mistakes of that sort than, say, CNN or the Wall Street Journal are today.

The repetitive, vivid mistakes of Today In Supreme Court History are sufficient to mark you an ignorant and/or disingenuous partisan rube. Have you earned a college degree (backwater religious schooling does not count)?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another Noble Prize (for achievement in identifying error in Today in Supreme Court History at the Volokh Conspiracy) was earned today.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"A proper revision at a legitimate publication would note the error and the change."

You mean, like he just did?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I checked the professor's post a moment ago. It has been changed. Neither the mistake nor the correction is acknowledged in that post.

Get an education, clinger. Backwater, nonsense-based schooling does not count.

[David Nieporent]

Kirkland still pretending not to understand that a blog is not a newspaper.

[David Nieporent]

(That's one of the many careers Kirkland pretends to have had but obviously did not.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you prepared to wager on your allegations, Mr. Nieporent?

Why do you figure you must lie in your effort to discredit your betters (the culture war's winners, at the expense of disaffected clingers) and defend this bigot-hugging, conservative blog?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It claims to be an academic blog, the work of (mostly self-described) scholars. It also misappropriates the franchises of the institutions that regret hiring the Conspirators.

[David Nieporent]

.

It claims to be an academic blog,

Another Kirkland lie.

The word "academic" does not appear in the descriptions of the blog — https://reason.com/volokh/editorial-independence/ and https://reason.com/volokh/who-we-are/ .

[bernard11]

The poll question is idiotic.

Why are "genocide against Gazans," and "trying to defend itself and eliminate Hamas," the only two possibilities?

And do these people have any idea what "genocide" means?

[Darth Buckeye]

The sad point is that the word “genocide” has been over-used and now means everything and nothing.

[damikesc]

Living with Hamas is not an option. Hamas themselves have said so.

[Don Nico]

An yet Israel's "friends" will pressure it into living alongside Judeocidal terrorists in perpetuity

[Life of Brian]

If I had the least inclination to treat the infinite wisdom of 18-24 year olds as a serious policy input, I do believe the sheer incoherence of the responses in this poll would cure me of the notion.

63% of 18-24 year olds say antisemitism is prevalent on university campuses today,* 68% say Jewish students on campus are facing harassment for being Jewish, and that protestors on campus calling for the genocide of Jews constitutes harassment of Jews (71%) and hate speech (70%).

Consistent with that, 73% thought that university presidents who said that calls for the genocide of Jews on their campuses are not necessarily a violation of their school’s code of conduct and harassment policies because it “depends on the context” or “whether speech turns into conduct” should resign. So far so good.

YET, only 47% thought that a student actually calling for the genocide of Jews should face actions for violating university rules.

So either this group of special snowflakes somehow feel like administrative heads should roll over not clearly prohibiting calls for Jewish genocide but they themselves should still be able to flout those prohibitions consequence free, or the survey is of even less value than the opinion of a segment of people who in general haven't yet had to make many difficult life choices.

* I can't help but point out that the braintrust that designed this poll asked "Who do you think is responsible for the
antisemitism on campuses, if any?" and chose to include the incoherent, cop-out answer (quite coincidentally the most popular!) "It's always been there" -- like a latent fungus, I suppose.

[Life of Brian]

Oops, linked to the October poll (which has fun issues of its own). The December one Eugene is discussing is here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It HAS always been there. See the work of Marcia Graham Synnott, including her 1974 UMass PhD thesis on discrimination against Jewish applicants in the Ivy League, 1900-1930 as well as her subsequent scholarship.

130 years isn't "forever" but how many Jews were there in this country before 1900?

It's gotten a lot worse in the past 30 years, but you look at some of the things that people said throughout the entire 20th Century -- people with enough education to know better -- and I'd argue that it HAS always been there.

[Life of Brian]

Again, the polling question was who is responsible for antisemitism on campus. The other choices (students, faculty, administration, political groups, etc.) are actually responsive to the question. "It's always been there" is not.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ask the same question about who is responsible for fraternity (and sorority) hazing -- I'd answer it has always been there.

The question should have been who is responsible for making antisemitism WORSE -- and those four answers aren't responsive because it isn't just one of the enumerated groups.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

(I strongly disagree with this condemnation of Israel's actions)

As one would expect of a polemical fan of brutal, immoral right-wing belligerence these days.

When better Americans stop providing political, military, and economic skirts for Israel to hide behind, will you travel to Israel to try to help your fellow right-wingers? Or will you focus on begging the American mainstream to reconsider its appetite for subsidizing superstition-laced right-wing government and conduct abroad?

Either way, the consequences of aligning with the losing side in America's culture war and electing a series of right-wing governments seem destined to be catastrophic for Israel That Israel would risk that is inexplicable, but Israelis are entitled to do as it wishes. It's their funeral.

[Drewski]

Huh. You don't directly praise Hamas for raping and murdering children, but you claim it's the sort of behavior that will win the culture war.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There are people who think it will.

You need to understand that they are not liberals, they do not hold liberal values.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The culture war is not quite over but it has been settled. Better Americans have won; conservatives have lost. That's why right-wingers are so disaffected, delusional, and desperate these days.

[SimonP]

(I strongly disagree with this condemnation of Israel's actions, but we should recognize the sentiments as they actually appear to be, not as we wish they were.)

Yes, Eugene, you've been very clear on your pro-war crimes position.

The most common response to claims that Israel is engaged in a "genocide" in Gaza is merely to quibble with the semantics. That should tell you something, Eugene. Even if you are generally in the pro-war crimes camp.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Stop being overly simplistic, Simon.

You take any group of young men, subject them to a LOT of stress and way too little sleep, and they will make some very bad decisions. This is the nature of modern warfare, and your own country is no better. Forget Vietnam, there are stories out of Korea of US soldiers sighting in their rifles on Korean farmers, missing with the first round, adjusting their sights and killing the farmer with the second.

There are stories out of WWII and WWI as well. Israel was attacked, Israel has a right to defend itself. We had the right to nuke Japan.

[SimonP]

"I do not deny that these are war crimes. I am saying that these war crimes are excusable."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many years until no respectable law faculty will employ a movement conservative?

[Drewski]

Semantics are important and it is good to pay attention to them, not bad. This goes double in politics, triple in law, and quadruple in rhetoric. Communication is a virtue.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Yes, Eugene, you’ve been very clear on your pro-war crimes position.

The best part is it appears the recent misadventures did not influence UCLA to any degree.

[Josh R]

Eugene isn't defending Israel's actions based on semantics. And no, he doesn't think Israel is engaging in war crimes either.

[Commenter_XY]

Professor Volokh, please keep focusing on free speech; more than ever, we need that protected. So keep blogging about it! It is the freedom to think. That is the bottom line, to me.

If Nazis can march in Skokie, then Hamas terror supporting shtunks can parade on campus (or Skokie) and say what they want. It is a free country.*

After that, freedom of association comes into play, I think. Anyone want to hire the terror-supporting shtunk? Nah. Go out on a date? Nope. Sit next to them in church or synagogue? Not a chance. Invite them into my home for Shabbat dinner? Uh, no.

*All I will say is when antisemitism takes hold, it is game over for we Jews. That is happening here in America; and 15-20 years ago antisemitism in America wasn't really more than a blip on the radar. Yeah, you had kooks and crazies (Nation of Islam, Westboro, white nationalists, etc); truly on the fringe. Jews were free to be Jewish (think, worship, behave) here, and did not have to worry about being attacked simply for being Jewish. Nothing like what we are seeing today....in our elite universities, city streets, and schools.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Stand and fight - you're the canary in the coal mine. (only with more votes, I hope)

If the youths can be educated *into* thinking of Jews as oppressors, they (or a new generation) can be educated *out* of it.

A coalition of deplorable clingers - Jews, Christians, old-school liberals (while they're still alive), can mount an ideological counteroffensive.

Would it work? It has to be tried first.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If the youths can be educated *into* thinking of Jews as oppressors, they (or a new generation) can be educated *out* of it.

That might make for a nice bumper sticker, but it ignores the reality that convincing someone to believe something that they're already predisposed to believe is easy, while convincing them to NOT believe is far more difficult, and in many cases a practical impossibility.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Professor Volokh, please keep focusing on free speech; more than ever, we need that protected.

Which Professor Volokh? The (soon-to-be former) UCLA professor who imposes viewpoint-driven censorship at his bigot-hugging blog and whose devotion to free expression flutters limply with the partisan breezes, or the professor at Emory?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Golly gee -- a professor is going from one institution to another -- that's never happened before....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

In this case, the change involves a disaffected, hard-right culture warrior departing a mainstream faculty (and, thank goodness, mainstream classrooms) and moving to the roster of a separatist, political think tank and a position as a paid partisan mouthpiece.

More, please!

[Dr. Ed 2]

"15-20 years ago antisemitism in America wasn’t really more than a blip on the radar. Yeah, you had kooks and crazies (Nation of Islam, Westboro, white nationalists, etc); truly on the fringe. Jews were free to be Jewish (think, worship, behave) here, and did not have to worry about being attacked simply for being Jewish. Nothing like what we are seeing today….in our elite universities, city streets, and schools."

The Graduate School at UMass Amherst was a hotbed of it 30 years ago, with those people going on to become tenured professors and otherwise powerful people elsewhere. 20 years ago, I started asking "exactly what part of 'Kill the Jews' do American Jews not understand?" (I'm *still* asking it...)

This stuff came from the Marxist Left. Yes there are kooks on the Right but that's all they are, it's the Marxist Left that this stuff is coming from. And I'm not even sure if it is true antiSemitism as much as hatred for the values of Judaism, notably the family and traditional values.

I've been sending up flares for 30 years and I am by no means the only one -- and it's really time to be worried because we are economically where Germany was in the 1920s -- we're borrowing from China to pay our bills much as Germany was borrowing from the US to pay theirs, and China's economy is a house of cards much as ours was in the 1920s. China already has some serious economic problems (Evergrande only being part of it) and soon will be facing worse.

It's worth studying the Wiemar Republic and Hitler's rise to power -- not because we like Hitler but because we don't want our own Hitler -- and Donald Trump ain't it, nor is Brandon.

[Josh R]

I agree freedom of association wins when it comes to dating and other socializing. But, not when it comes to employment.

As a legal matter, anti-discrimination law trumps association in employment (some locales proscribe discriminating on the basis of political belief). As a moral matter, I oppose broad employment blacklisting over speech for the same reason I oppose government punishing speech: the power of the censor is too great compared to the value of the associative right.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Are we not doing to discuss the anti-Genocide federal statute:

"(c)Incitement Offense.—

"Whoever directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) [genocide] shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1091?quicksearch=1091&quicksearch=

If the college presidents had simply said that their policies track federal law, would they have gotten the same backlash?

Of course, as I've emphasized, the Brandenburg decision limits the scope of punishable incitement - so as a P. S., the presidents could have said, "of course our policies, like the federal law you guys passed, has some gaps, but I presume a Congressional committee isn't going to pressure us to go beyond what Congress itself has prohibited."

Also, "we don't think 'from the river to the sea' or 'support Israel' are genocidal statements, but if the FBI wants to investigate such statements we will offer full cooperation. So far, the people you're concerned about haven't been prosecuted under *your own law,* suggesting it's not genocidal and/or protected by the First Amendment."

[Don Nico]

What you point out shows how poorly the law firm that prepared Gay and Magill did their job.

Sure the Honorable woman from NY would have needled them, but their response would have played much better than "it depends..."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I'm going to remember these exchanges fondly when Israel's right-wing belligerents try to cope with the loss of the American political, economic, and military skirts they have been hiding behind for decades.

Think of all the abortion clinics we will be able to build, and the Confederate statues we will be able to demolish, and the gun safety rules we will be able to enforce strenuously, with the funds that are not used to subsidize a bunch of superstitious, immoral, violent right-wing assholes.

[Bored Lawyer]

Who is "we?" Taxpayers don't fund abortion clinics.

And given the very small size of the funds sent to Israel relative to the federal budget, nothing but politics and the Constitution are currently preventing any of those things.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Taxpayers don’t fund abortion clinics.

Not yet.

But soon enough.

[Josh R]

That response, like any response short of categorical acceptance of calling for the genocide of Jews as violations of school policy, would have resulted in the same bruhaha.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

They had limited options, was there any viable, job-keeping answer?

[Josh R]

Given the preexisting double standard, likely not.

Perhaps they should have tried a Kavanaugh and lashed out at Stefanik for allowing people who call for genocide of Jews to walk the streets. Of course, that's a crap argument. Sadly, you might have to fight Stefanik's crap with more crap.

[Don Nico]

Maybe, but the optics would have been different.

[David Nieporent]

.

If the college presidents had simply said that their policies track federal law, would they have gotten the same backlash?

Yes, because their problem is that this isn't true. They couldn't offer up a full-throated pro-free speech Nazis-in-Skokie defense, because their policies do not permit all constitutionally-protected speech. If they had fallen into that trap, Congress could've asked about all the situations where speech was abrogated to protect the sensibilities of so-called "marginalized" groups.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"They couldn’t offer up a full-throated pro-free speech Nazis-in-Skokie defense"

That's my point, with my clever plan, they wouldn't have to; they're saying "we will ban the same things Congress bans, Congressman."

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That’s my point, with my clever plan, they wouldn’t have to; they’re saying “we will ban the same things Congress bans, Congressman.”

So your clever plan was for them to tell a transparently obvious lie?

[tkamenick]

Professor Volokh, this poll is horrible, you should be embarrassed writing a blog post on it. It's either legitimate self defense or genocide, and therefore "most" respondents view it as genocide? Come on, this is ridiculous. The result would've likely been the same had it just said do you support or oppose Israel's response to the Hamas attacks.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I think he was only using the poll to demonstrate the vagueness of the word "genocide," and that consequently speech restrictions banning calls for "genocide" would cover a hell of a lot of ground. Much more than most people would otherwise support, I would hope.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He's just tossing red meat to his roundly bigoted, poorly educated, obsolete right-wing fans, with whom he shares a disaffected view of modern America.

[ReaderY]

I think tkamenick is right here.

The poll simply asks if you agree or disagree with Israel’s war. People who disagree with Israel’s war policy might choose to ignore, might not even bother to read, the poor choice of wording used on the disagreement side. Those who think about if might even conclude that notwithstanding the overmelodramatic term attached to the disagreement box, checking the disagreement box still more accurately reflects their view than saying they agree when they don’t.

[ReaderY]

And in this matter as in always, even if I agree with you on what you are trying to persuade people, this doesn’t excuse sloppy evidence and argument, and it particularly doesn’t excuse what I agree are highly misleading poll questions.

The chasm between agreeing with everything Israel is doing and saying that what Israel is doing meets the definition of genocide is vast.

[Bored Lawyer]

What the post rightly highlights is that all terms are elastic and subjective. "Genocide" means whatever someone feels it means, so it can be used to ban whatever one does not like and permit what one likes.

Which is the same situation we are in today -- anything one finds offensive becomes "harassment" or a "microaggression" with no regard to any objective standard of those terms.

Which is also why much of the defense of the "context" statements by the university presidents' testimony is wrongheaded and misleading. When they use "context" they don't mean "according to the rigorous standards of Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence." They mean "whatever we or one of our favored groups find offensive."